Server version

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description isn't burdened with that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool exposes version and start time precisely so the agent can detect stale code, and it explains how to interpret the result. It doesn't disclose the output format, but for a simple version/start-time report this is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the core function, the second states the usage scenario. The purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states what is returned (version and start time), when to call it (stale-code suspicion), and what to do with the result (reconnect if old). An agent has everything needed to invoke and act on this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately spends no space on parameters it doesn't have.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'Report this todo-mcp process's data format version and start time' — stating exactly what the tool outputs. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools (todo_add, todo_claim, etc.), which all operate on todo items, whereas this is a diagnostic version-check tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly names the trigger condition: 'if todo_list output looks wrong (missing/undefined fields), check this first.' It also prescribes the follow-up action ('reconnect if the process looks old'), giving the agent a complete decision procedure with no inference required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.